I dont see how a dissenting voice would be a surprise, I suppose you could be surprised at my choice of language (blunter than I normally use) or at my expectations from Affcom but being here in Australia we are isolated we dont get the opportunities like people in Europe and America to be part of the discussions behind those closed doors. When changes happen we dont normally hear about them but are expected to follow them.
What I see is that Affcom has drifted from being a voice of the affiliates to being just another bureaucracy which has resulted in exactly the same response that caused affcom to be initially created back in 2012 with the loose creation of a Latin America group, SE Asia group, Eastern Europe groups being formed to give those chapters a voice they thought they had with affcom. All we ever hear down here is the level of distrust and lack assumption of good faith with more rules, more bureaucracy more power cabals. we make rules to address things that might occur using language that shows a level of distrust and badt faith . As a group we need to get back to trust and assuming good faith. Choose language carefully, use wording to promote not put down, create criteria thats boosts the affiliates we dont need to pull each other down to make things better because we just happen to find it easy to make that choice On 23 August 2016 at 14:46, Christophe Henner <chen...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Hi Gnangarra, > > This is not a discussion, and this is by design. > > As Carlos said, those are provisional criterias so that our movement can > keep seeing new organizations blooming. But the discussion will not be only > about those criterias, but on a much larger, and I believe more interesting > and important, topic. > > As we're moving forward regarding the movement strategy process (more to > come soon, it's only been 7 weeks since we announced that, and summer), it > is key to have discussions about the organizations in general. How do we > make them work as a whole? What values do we want Wikimedia organizations > to live by? etc. And out of those discussions, a criteria discussion will > come. > > But it seemed quite a waste of time and energy to first have a consultation > about those provisional criterias and then another discussion about the > strategy. > > That's for your point on the criterias. Now on the "Affcom whom I thought > was there to support the Affiliates not punish them". Yes, AffCom support > affiliates, but AffCom also has a duty to make sure that affiliates live by > their engagements. > > One doesn't exclude the other, quite the opposite actually. > > As a whole, I'm a bit surprized by your email. Things aren't black or > white. > > Those criterias aren't up for discussion so that the discussion can happen > on a much larger topic that includes them. > AffCom role is to tend to our movement affiliates, this comes with many > duties and responsabilities amongst which helping organizations to get > recognized, supporting them, helping them, remind them of their duties and > sometime (rarely hopefully) challenge their statuts. > > Happy to further that discussion, > > Have a all great day > > Christophe > > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So to clarify, this isnt a discussion its been mandated to happen, just > > like Wikimania was mandated behind closed doors... > > > > sorry for it sounding like a dummy spit here but its nice to hear after > all > > of the upraor and damage done over the last 18 months the community was > > heard and their requests were well and truly ignored by the BoT and now > > Affcom whom I thought was there to support the Affiliates not punish them > > > > On 23 August 2016 at 12:43, Salvador A <salvador1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I want to close the chapter of this discussion related to > > > quantitative-qualitative criteria in order to call your attention to > some > > > consequences of this new criteria for existing affiliates. I want to be > > > clear on this in order to avoid future missunderstandings. > > > > > > Romaine said that it's desirable to have already recognized affiliates > to > > > meet this criteria. Both AffCom and BoT want this, and it's would be > > unfair > > > to require this criteria only for groups that want to get the ThOrg and > > > Chapter status and at the same time to have a lesser average of work > > among > > > those that already are recognized as such. Consequently, *every ThOrg > and > > > Chapter must comply with this criteria in order to get and keep > affiliate > > > status. *The idea is keeping the affiliates moving forward and to avoid > > to > > > get them dormant. > > > > > > This criteria will be checked out during the annual review that WMF > staff > > > makes of Chapters and ThOrgs status (yes, the same that make you > eligible > > > to go to WMCON in Berlin) in case an affiliate doesn't meet the > > > requirementes it will be reported to AffCom who will decide in every > case > > > if a recomendation to Board of Trustees is needed. > > > > > > --- > > > *Possible questions:* > > > > > > *Q1: My chapter/ThOrg exists since many years ago, could I loose my > > > recognition as chapter?* > > > > > > *A1:* Yes, if you don't meet the criteria and you don't repair the > > > situation during some time after AffCom request, you can loose it. > > > > > > *Q2: How can I do to avoid this?* > > > > > > *A2:* Work hard, make activities, set goals and report. Ask for AffCom, > > WMF > > > or other affiliates help if is needed. > > > > > > *Q3: But there are some chapters that have already many years without > > > activity and nothing had happened so far.* > > > > > > *A3:* AffCom is already working on it. > > > > > > --- > > > If you have any other questions on that doesn't hesitate in doing it, > I'm > > > sure Carlos will be happy of answer them :P > > > > > > Regards! > > > > > > 2016-08-22 22:31 GMT-05:00 Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > Point Im trying to make is focus on the positives to achieve what you > > > > want, your path isnt necessarily be that which will help others, > accept > > > > that vague definitions is better than actual numbers to do that you > > need > > > to > > > > assume good faith and trust that the vague will fair to challenges we > > all > > > > face in own circumstances number are hard and fast they cant always > be > > > fair > > > > > > > > On 23 August 2016 at 11:20, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Gnangarra, > > > >> > > > >> I agree with you about the vision. I think that where we see things > > > >> differently may be in the discussion of how we achieve the vision. > > > >> Individuals have a lot of freedom in the Wikimedia community, but > > > >> organizations exist in a complicated world with real money, real > laws, > > > >> real > > > >> people, and a variety of circumstances that can help or hinder > > progress. > > > >> We > > > >> want to share the sum of human knowledge, and to do that effectively > > > >> requires a coordinated effort. Wikimedia is an incredibly > complicated > > > >> collection of entities, of which affiliates are a part. > > > >> > > > >> I am very mindful that real resources (time and money) are involved > in > > > >> Wikimedia, and I would like those resources to be used wisely, > > > >> transparently, and fairly in service of the mission. > > > >> > > > >> I need to depart thread so that I can focus on other projects, but I > > > plan > > > >> to return here in a week or two. > > > >> > > > >> Pine > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik > > > >> i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > unsubscribe> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > GN. > > > > President Wikimedia Australia > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Affiliates mailing list > > > > affilia...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/affiliates > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > *Salvador Alcántar* > > > *@salvador_alc* > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > GN. > > President Wikimedia Australia > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
